User Profile: bonesiii

bonesiii

Member Since: October 14, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 7:32pm

    And you appealed to the Christian protection of women (and equality by the way) and condemnation of rape as well!

    And you missed entirely our general opposition to violence and murder based on personal whims, which is what much of our legal system is based on, and theft, etc. — all borrowed from Christianity in our society, and NOT universal to humanity by any stretch. Basically, you seem to have entirely missed run’s point and you’re just illustrating it again…

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 7:31pm

    In an ancient society most rape victims would have DEMANDED the outcome the Mosaic law codifies, but if there were exceptions, judges could overrule the normal way for them. Atheists who just read as far as one of those “evil bible” sites and think “GOTCHA” are blind to the realities of ancient life like this. It is also not clear that “rape” is the proper translation in this instance; it may refer to consensual sex before marriage (begging the question of what the heck the translators were thinking… but it’s an issue I’ll leave for experts in the Hebrew language :P).

    “Basically I am very happy that we are a secular society and our morality is not in any way based on the Christian faith.”

    You did not demonstrate this (“not in any way”) at all. You simply gave distorted examples of strawman “morals” that society doesn’t have. Even if we accepted, for sake of discussion, that those were Christian morals, you haven’t demonstrated that your morals (or modern morals in general) are TOTALLY different from Christianity.

    In fact, you actually implied several APPEALS to Christian morals to make the argument!

    You appealed to the Christian teaching that slavery is wrong to try to condemn the Bible based on your twisting of some passages to make it look like it supports it. You appealed to the Christian respect for life to attack the Bible for supposed genocide. You did the same in the cases of apostasy and heresy.

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 7:31pm

    Ironically, death for heresy is what Christ was executed for (from the claimed perspective of the Jewish leadership of the time, albeit not from the Roman perspective, and I doubt they actually thought it heresy given the signs). But actually atheistic societies regularly murder those who don’t agree with their status quo or indoctrinated views. Your personal lack of belief in it is not at all comforting.

    Does Christianity urge such a thing? Obviously not. You may be talking about the wages of sin being death (any death, including old age), or might be talking about something in the Mosaic law. We do teach the former, of course, but this is not the same thing as a human death penalty, since God is our Creator and Sustainer, and God does not completely destroy anybody, but after this life ends, those who don’t repent and accept salvation are imprisoned in what we call “hell”. As for the Mosaic law, remember Matthew 19:8 (and Cain, by the way).

    “I don’t believe that a rape victim should be turned over to her rapist.”

    This one is definitely one of the Mosaic Law fallacies. Obviously Christianity does not teach this, but even in the context of the Mosaic society the argument is missing a lot. See here:

    http://www.tektonics.org/af/ancientmores.php

    I would point out primarily that the Mosaic law’s out-of-context and/or short rules were meant to be guidelines for the majority of cases.

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 7:31pm

    Also, genocide usually implies wiping people out based on something like racism, when biblical judgments were carried out against politically unified groups who shared violent philosophies, with exceptions for people in the same biological descent who supported the good guys (like Rahab).

    And by the way, let’s not let this slip under the radar — your only argument against genocide is your own preference! A case in point of the serious danger of atheism’s “morality.” If most people preferred a particular group to be slaughtered, atheism would allow it.

    The real question is whether God’s judgments are just. And I can only answer that as a yes. For one thing, he’s omniscient and I’m not; he knows when it’s called for and when it isn’t. The mere fact that it’s reported bluntly in the word demonstrated to be his via the unfakeable prophecies etc. (combined with all the sound support) shows that they were just. And in many specific cases we are given enough detail to understand why specifically it needed to happen (the violent group would continue to make life worse, or more temporary, for others if not punished).

    And let’s not forget a genocide of sorts is being condoned right now by many atheists — abortion.

    “I do not believe in the death penalty for apostasy or heresy”

    [reply in next]

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 7:30pm

    “Actually, although not an atheist, the last thing that I want is for others to live according to the Bible, as Christians.

    I don’t want slavery in this world, which the Bible condones.”

    Not so (and this is a very tired argument). Rather, the Bible was written in a time when “slavery” (mostly not the kind you’re thinking of) was too entrenched to fight blatantly yet, lest the entire thing be rejected and it would never be defeated. The Bible took a ground-up, hearts-based approach to defeating it and this is the only approach that has ever actually WORKED. (That’s no coincidence.) The Bible only tolerated slavery, while regulating it and laying the groundwork for a reform (such as defining all humans as equals).

    “I would prefer that all genocide be ended, which the Bible has supported.”

    It is true that at times God commanded judgments on groups to be carried out by people, but I disagree with labeling this “genocide”, instead of large-scale capital punishment. That’s like saying a legal and just execution is “murder” (or homicide) just because killing is involved (or a justified self-defense killing). It also gives zero support for humans making that call on our own; without sound proof that God is actually ordering it, you can do nothing. If anything it implies that it TAKES a command by God to ever be allowed to kill groups.

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 7:30pm

    Even with a stronger desire to help others back then, not knowing HOW will be a problem. Now we know more, and for now our desire to help others has only begun to erode (not that it ever reached perfection). What we see is exactly what theism would predict.

    “I guess the christian response is that god does what he does for his own reasons and works in mysterious ways.”

    Please note we do not refer to him in English with the lowercase; we call him God. Anyways, this is a fascinating conversation you have going on in your head, but maybe if you want to understand what we actually think you should look beyond your own skull and recognize that as an atheist you aren’t likely to be qualified to understand it on your own? :P

    I don’t see what’s mysterious about it in this case… it seems like it’s only a mystery to you. No offense… O_o

    “It would appear that in the past, there were more ‘true’ christrians in this country who probably prayed a lot more per capita than the christians of today, but God seemed to not answer their prayers nearly as much as he does today, per capita.”

    Actually it seems to me that you don’t get the role of people helping other people. Have you actually ever read the NT, for example? It would be pretty hard to miss this if you had. You seem to think it’s just “God does everything for us.” That’s nothing but a strawman.

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 7:29pm

    I’m not sure where he was going with it, but I would say it probably means that your current appeals to status quo as “what is moral” are actually not anchored to anything, and if you really set loose a society to be atheistic, that monster can turn on you in an instant and deem YOU the one whose rights don’t matter. As long as the majority agrees, you would have no recourse.

    “So, does God answer more prayers today, listen closer, or care more about the current very sinful population (according to a lot of christians), or is it just possible that science has given us much better knowledge and treatments for illness and injury”

    Scientific medicine flourished in the Christianized West (since science is based on biblical teachings like that there are laws of creation, because there is a Lawgiver), and we built a body of knowledge and technology for this purpose over time, plus the motive to help others via this tool became strong (and is currently entrenched, but eroding) thanks to Christianity as well. :)

    “Did God have anything to do with it?”

    Since nothing else, or at least nothing ordered, could exist without God, yeah.

    “If so, why did he wait till now to treat us lowly humans better?”

    I don’t understand how you mean the question, but it might stem from not getting the answer I gave two quotes up. :) You do understand that prior to our building as much in the body of knowledge, obviously medicine will be less effective?

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 7:29pm

    “notion that god can absolve you of infractions against other people, as if other people dont get a say in whether you should be absolved.”

    This forgets that God created and constantly sustains all people, and values forgiveness. If one person refuses to forgive, that person is themselves sinning against God and God is under no logical responsibility to honor that wish. Sinning against other people is ultimately sinning against their Creator. Besides, nobody who has lived long enough to interact with others as you are doing here is really free from any sin against other people, so your argument would doom yourself.

    “can you imagine if our criminal justice system actually ran that way?”

    To an extent it does (judges determine sentences, they can be reduced based on exceptionally good behavior etc.), but this is not an apt analogy as people working in the justice system are not in a position toward the victims of crime like the one that God is.

    Anyways, you didn’t really address his main point, notice, which is that by and large you do get your morality from what you were taught, and that currently derives from our Christian heritage. :)

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 7:28pm

    The person who stole it will know it and that will affect their body language / behavioral language, the money will be spent somewhere probably, etc. Such things can subconsciously “transmit” to others. Society would be -minimally- impacted, but still impacted.

    The real question is why an atheist should CARE about society, lol.

    “You have been raised to want a society were people do not steal and kill, consider the possibility that you have been brainwashed. Isn’t it possible that you have been told never to steal since you were young is the reason you now think its wrong?”

    You’re absolutely right on this. Atheists tend to just accept the status quo, if not push for a worse one. Look at Dawkins; he’s a case in point of this.

    Of course, we DO also have a God-given conscience. :)

    “christianity is considered morally repugnant, because it equates all moral infractions as equally sinful”

    Common misunderstanding. All sins make us fall short of perfection (basic logic :P) but some sins by a greater distance. Murder is deemed worse than lying, for example (see Paul’s statement about himself as the worst of sinners for previously persecuting the church for example). All it takes is one sin to not be perfect (and therefore disqualified from a works-based eternal life reward), but different sins are “more bad” than others.

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 7:28pm

    “The Christian religion made society moral. For example, how many hospitals built solely to heal the poor were created before Christianity flourished (zero).”

    I highly doubt that, but it’s certainly true that Christians have helped medicine flourish, and in the rise of evolutionism, we are seeing a lack of care for some people rise — “just take the pill”.

    “Blink you live next to a old man with severe alzheimer’s and is dying of cancer. He has relatives you do not like, and some gold coins you can easily steal. What non-faith argument can you give to not steal the coins?”

    I’d be cautious with this approach. If he can’t think of one, he’ll probably just steal them and not care. :P

    Ultimately, the issue I think you’re trying to drive at is that there’s no objective foundation for morality in atheism, while in Christianity there is. For example, if the police considered it okay to steal the coins, fear of getting caught might be small enough. (And such things have happened in many societies.) Atheistic arguments for a “moral” of a sort can be made, but they are ultimately illogical as they lack that underlying support.

    “You say if blink steals the coins from someone who will never miss them, never know it happens effects society in some way. Society will never know about it. Society is not effected, period, end of story.”

    I disagree with this — not to play Atheist’s Advocate, but just logically.

  • [-3] September 15, 2014 at 6:28pm

    “Christians did not make modern society moral, modern society made Christians moral.”

    Christians made modern society… the moral parts…

    Sorry, blink, but throwing together a little catchphrase isn’t a valid alternative to established history. Also notice “christians” — actually it is biblical Christianity that has spread morality and over 2000 years gradually improved life globally, against an entrenched worldliness. The people are sinners who partially reform in Christ — which means they still make mistakes. But the system of belief that GOD gave us in his word is what led to that reform.

    “You had nearly 2000 years to advocate for the sort of things we consider moral in modern society”

    And that’s precisely what built this society! Alternatives had 6000 years (you think many more) to get here, and it didn’t happen any other way. Of course, the sin nature is in all of us, so it’s a hard fight. When you consider that, it’s amazing we got to the height of America’s morality in only 2000 years since the completion of the Bible. Sadly, it seems that now many are turning their backs on it and we are seeing the country go down as a result. :(

    “not only were Christians not advocating for it 300, 500, or 1000 years ago… They were fighting tooth and nail against it.”

    I have a feeling you aren’t being up front about “it” — but that aside, with things we can agree are moral, like freedom from slavery, we WERE.

  • September 15, 2014 at 6:12pm

    “Evolution is based on observational evidence.”

    Such as…?

    “All science is [based on observational evidence]”

    With the caveat of the difference between “historical” or origins science and observational science that takes place in the present, we can agree. We just don’t agree with the unsupported claim that evolution is science. :) I think this is an indoctrination technique — rather than having to actually soundly support it as science (or sound conclusions reached from the work of science), simply label it science! It distracts discussions from what really matters — show us the sound support — and makes it into “is not!” “is too!” “is not!” and so forth.

    “The idea that we must observe, first hand, in real time, everything is some cooked up nonsense”

    This argument is useless for telling us WHICH claims of past events actually occurred. (And this is a strawman.)

    “Theists love to try and run the ‘atheists are bad people… somehow!’ nonsense past the radar all the time to which I point out that lots of atheists work in scientific fields on things that could improve your life.”

    I’m a little puzzled how in your mind apparently working in scientific fields is mutually exclusive with what I said about the motive for embracing atheism? (Etc.) Do you think people are either totally evil or perfect?

    And what of the theistic scientists?

  • September 15, 2014 at 6:03pm

    “To do a good deed, or treat others well for the sake doing good and not because of the threat of punishment seems a lot more moral to me.”

    I don’t accept your premise that believing things out of a fear of what will happen if you don’t believe is “immoral”, but 1) that isn’t what worked for me, and 2) there’s no reason to “dichotomize” these two things. We can accept the truth AND treat others well. In fact, those two things are MUCH more likely to work hand in hand.

    And even more to the point, if treating others well has value, then so does eternal life. If the ultimate good doesn’t matter, why should any morals matter?

    Finally, we can’t just wish away the punishment that sound support does say is coming to all of us if we remain outside of Christ. It’s like saying “it’s immoral to think this river is heading for a waterfall, so you’d better not steer for the shore!”

  • September 15, 2014 at 6:00pm

    “Humanity needs to grow up and give up superstition.”

    I would agree. :) Of course, I don’t accept that you’re the one who has done that. ;)

    “If the only reason you obey god”

    Remember that we see a vital distinction between “little g gods” (finite beings) and the Big G God (the single infinite God who has to exist due to causality proof, demonstrated Bible is his Word via unfakeable prophecies, etc.).

    Anyways, any sentence that starts out like this (“only” reason?) probably isn’t going to end well… I have countless reasons for obeying God. Accepting truth is often like that; to use the classic analogy of the spheroid Earth, there isn’t only one reason I accept that it’s a sphere.

    Anyways, what follows in your sentence will probably be a strawman… let’s see…

    “is because you don’t want the punishment of Hell”

    It’s interesting that you single that one out. Why?

    Is this one a strawman? Well, that DID matter me, so no, not entirely. But it’s certainly a strawman to say this was my “only” reason. And that was not the reason that made me believe. It was knowing the sound support. It DID help motivate me to SEEK the truth and not just clamp proverbial hands over my eyes, since it shows why the question matters — why, if the Bible is true, we need Jesus (in part). :)

    “then I would say that is not very moral”

    Fascinating reaction. I would have said something more like “then I would say that is not the way to find truth”.

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 5:54pm

    “Lack of belief is based on lack of evidence.”

    Denial is a thing, wouldn’t you agree? After all, we lack belief in evolution, so you can’t believe it’s that simple, or you would have to simultaneously believe evolution has and doesn’t have evidence. I’m sure you’re only out to troll, but maybe it needs said for the sake of others reading along. :) It has to be that -somebody- is in denial, whether it’s us or you. And since we have shown repeatedly why you don’t have legitimate evidence, but we have sound support, I can only believe that you (now) and me (previously) didn’t believe the Bible because of some kind of denial.

    Now are there things out there that people don’t believe in because they lack evidence? Absolutely, but it’s Hasty Generalization fallacy to lump ALL things that people don’t believe in, in that category.

    “Would you care to name one thing you don’t believe in that has no evidence.. but only ‘don’t believe in it’ because you have a ‘hard heart’.”

    Since I wasn’t talking about a thing lacking evidence, the question misses the point. We know the Bible is true because of the sound support — the question is why some (including formerly ourselves in many cases) still don’t believe. The answers I think vary but all are related to the psychology of denial in some way.

    Short answer: strawman — you switched out the part about “sound support” for its opposite; “no evidence.”

  • [-2] September 15, 2014 at 5:44pm

    “if disbelief is based on a hard heart, can we also say that theism is based on a soft head?”

    Quite the opposite — through sheer force of reason, I had to get over that emotional problem. I’d say atheism (no offense) and any other belief other than that of the Bible is based on a “soft head”, but it isn’t caused by “being stupid” — it’s a problem in the heart that makes you want to avoid recognizing the soundly supported truth. The specific causes can vary.

  • September 15, 2014 at 5:42pm

    Agreed!

  • September 15, 2014 at 5:38pm

    What we actually see isn’t just a lack of transitions in some places, it’s that the PATTERN of “gaps” versus filling-in fit the biblical scenario of distinct kinds, with variation within the kinds. :)

    “Sparky101, denying a couple the right to terminate a diseased pregnancy, denies them the right to conceive a happy, healthy baby and bring it into this world. You may feel you want to roll with whatever life tosses your way, others prefer to be in the driver seat”

    Do you apply this philosophy when you encounter adults you wish weren’t in the world? You want to be in the driver’s seat, right? Letting them keep living wouldn’t be that…

    And who cares what they prefer, if it’s okay to kill people? Big crime — killing people — trumps little problem, even BIG little problems like having to deal with “diseased people” (as you would put it). (You know, we’re all “diseased” somehow or another.) I don’t say it this bluntly to be inflammatory, but it’s a serious concern. If we can kill people we don’t like, why should we care about ANY other problem people face? Your priority is backwards; saving life should be at the top, and if that means enduring other problems, that is what should be done. But we can also seek ways to minimize other problems too. One simple one is adoption. I’m not saying any of these other ways are easy, but murder should not be easy (or allowed at all).

  • September 15, 2014 at 5:36pm

    The question confused “species” (a modern man-made term that is rarely applied consistently) for “kinds” (it’s two separate kinds that can’t cross-breed). Some of the “species” that can breed are actually what I call “branch-kinds” within the same “rootkind” (or baramin), and have simply been called “species” by people.

    Even so, the question isn’t entirely relevant, since evolution does not teach that all species or larger groups should still cross breed.

    “Q: Why does the fossil record lack any transitional fossils?

    The fossil record is full of transitional fossils.”

    With respect, that’s like answering “why don’t we see unicorns all over the place?” with “the world is full of unicorns”. We actually see nothing of the sort, and evolutionary scientists are on record admitting so. You can’t just hurl the elephant of the claim; you have to show specific and soundly supported examples. Usually when evolutionists actually GIVE examples, it’s the same tired old debunked handful of attempted claims, or some obscure ones that haven’t been properly analyzed yet. Everybody knows we do NOT see the smooth and abundant transitions Darwin predicted.

    More importantly, we DO see small differences WITHIN kind, so we know small differences CAN be fossilized. This just makes the vast gaps all the more important, as it’s no longer valid to answer with “if you fill one gap you just make two smaller gaps” and the like.

  • September 15, 2014 at 5:35pm

    “Q: Why are most mutations detrimental to its host organism?

    Most mutations are benign. The average human is born with 150 dna base-pairs mutations that are unique to them – inherited from neither parent. Most are benign.”

    This question was largely off-topic, as the issue isn’t so much beneficial/detrimental but increasing information versus decreasing information. Mutations distort, corrupt, and delete information; none create new information.

    That said, mutations you’re calling “benign” are not necessarily so. You would need to show strong support for that claim. My guess is you mean that they don’t lead to instant (or individual) death. But this is actually bad for evolution in many cases, as it’s part of long-term genome decay; “malignant” mutations that result in death of the individual bring natural selection in to remove them, but the long-term build up of non-killing mutations is slowly leading life as a WHOLE toward extinction, and since this kind of mutation doesn’t cause quick death, natural selection is useless to stop it.

    Some mutations (which degrade or destroy) information ARE beneficial, like the classic example of a beetle on a windy island losing the coding for wings. But this isn’t helpful for evolution from simple to complex.

    “Q: Why can species not cross breed with each-other?

    Actually, some can. But for the most part, they are to genetically different.”

    [reply in next]

123 To page: Go